Tag: Not So Crazy Libertarian Ideals

#Anarchy in Detroit

The Reason Foundation has started a four-part series titled #Anarchy in Detroit (I’m pretty sure the pound sign is there merely to promote the series on Twitter). Unlike statists who like to point at the ills brought on by statism as examples of anarchy, Reason is showing events that actually arise from anarchy (i.e. spontaneous order). The first part of this series covers a group of individuals who have taken it upon themselves to mow the public parks:

But while politicians, unions, and investors slug it out in bankruptcy court and grasp for their share of what little cash is left, ordinary citizens are left to fend for themselves in a city with no functioning government. This is Reason TV’s coverage of what happens when people are left to their own devices and forced to come up with creative ways to pick up the pieces and find solutions in a city they once loved.

This is #Anarchy in Detroit, a four-part series showcasing what actual Detroit residents are doing to make the Motor City a better place to live.

In Part I, Tom Nardone is tired of seeing Detroit’s public parks go unmowed by the city government. He thinks that children should have a place to play. So, he hops on his mower and does it himself. Then, he invites others.

“I was surprised when the first person showed up. I was like, ‘All right. I guess someone’s as crazy as I am,'” says Nardone.

Hence, the Mower Gang is born.

During discussions of anarchism statists will often ask asinine questions thinking they’re checkmates. One of the most common questions, a question so common that it is mocked relentlessly in anarchist circles, is “Who will build the roads?” The answer to that question is the same answer to other such questions: those who see a need for them. Who will maintain the public parks? The people who see value in maintained public parks. Who will teach the children? The people who see value in educating youths. Since the state is composed of people anything it can do anybody else can do.

Spontaneous order can be summed up as the outcome of people doing what they believe needs to be done. Instead of a top-down method of dictating what needs to be done, spontaneous order allows each individual to act on what they believe needs to be done. Generally the former ends up with tremendous amounts of resources being put towards building weapons to expropriate wealth from others while the latter generally results in neighborhoods and markets.

Anarchy isn’t something to be feared, statism is.

Zero Common Sense Strike Again

Whoever came up with the idea of zero tolerance polices must have been a very poor prophesier. When you remove the ability to consider the context of situations you end up with a system that rules everybody guilty of something. Public schools, which are supposed to be bastions of tolerance and understanding, have numerous zero tolerance policies. These policies lead to idiocy like children being prohibited from taking over the counter medications. They also lead to students who play with Airsoft guns on their own property being suspended:

Like thousands of others in Hampton Roads, Khalid Caraballo plays with airsoft guns. Caraballo and his friend Aidan were suspended because they shot two other friends who were with them while playing with the guns as they waited for the school bus.

The two seventh graders say they never went to the bus stop; they fired the airsoft guns while on Caraballo’s private property.

[…]

Khalid and Aiden aren’t only suspended, they were recommended to be expelled for a year for “possession, handling and use of a firearm.”

The case revolves around whether the students were on private property or at the bus stop. Let’s assume, for a moment, that the school administrators who weren’t at the bus stop when the incident happened somehow were correct when they declared where the student were standing. Even if the students were at the bus stop they weren’t on the bus nor were they at school. How can the school administrators claim jurisdiction over the bus stop and private property in such an absolute way that they feel suspending, and possibly expelling, those students is within their power? How does it make sense to suspend and possibly expel students for playing with toys? There is no victim and therefore no crime. The only “crime” is a violation of the school’s zero tolerance policy, which must state the mere thought of a firearm constitutes a violation and can lead to expulsion.

The school administrators are threatening to ruin the students’ lives without having any proof of wrongdoing, let alone wrongdoing on school governed property. This is insanity is the inevitable result of zero tolerance policies.

We Need to Talk

Everybody in the firearm community has heard about Starbucks’ request. Whether that open letter persuades you to stop frequenting Starbucks is your business and I fully respect whatever decision you make. But we need to talk about overreaction for a minute.

Us gun owners are used to dealing with gun control advocates who, regardless of their claims, have an end goal of abolishing non-government ownership of firearms. It’s natural for us to get angry when we hear somebody like Dianne Feinstein demanding Congress pass a law prohibiting the most popular rifle in the United States. We don’t like people trying to take our shit. But we must also realize that just because a person or organization isn’t on our side doesn’t mean they’re on the other side.

The reaction from both the gun rights and gun control sides regarding this Starbucks request has been completely overblown. I’m not going to spend much time addressing the gun control community because, from my point of view, their reactions are commonly overblown. But those of us in the gun rights community should hold ourselves to a higher standard than our intellectual opponents. That means stating facts, not fabrications.

I can’t even count how many members of the gun rights community have said Starbucks is banning guns in its stores. That’s a flat out lie. In fact the letter clearly states that guns aren’t being banned and that the request that gun owners not bring their firearms into Starbucks’ stores will not be enforced. There’s a huge difference between requesting gun owners not bring guns into a store and prohibiting gun owners from bringing guns into stores. If you’ve been telling people that Starbucks’ is banning firearms knock it off. You’re not helping anybody by making gun owners look like liars.

I would also like to specifically address the gun owners who have taken this opportunity to continue their personal crusades against open carry. To you I have only this to say: fuck off. OK, I actually have more to say. You guys have been sitting on your high horse prophesying doom and gloom for gun owners because some have the audacity to not conceal their firearms. I’ve got news for you sunshine, most of us who do open carry, whether it be all the time or periodically, have had no negative interactions. I open carry whenever I’m on a bicycle because concealing my firearm is almost impossible. When I stop at intersections or take a break I often have very pleasant conversations with other bikers. Not once has a fellow trail rider freaked out or otherwise acted in a negative way towards me. I’m not hurting any cause. A vast majority of people who open carry are in the same boat. The problem isn’t open carry activists, it’s assholes.

Every community has its set of assholes. These people usually take the form of attention whores. They want people to pay attention to them and perform outlandish deeds in order to get the attention they so desperately crave. If you walk into a store openly carrying a gun, make your purchase, and go about your business you aren’t hurting anybody or any cause. If you walk into a store openly carrying a rifle, yell “Hey everybody, I have a big ass rifle! Look at me!”, make your purchase, and go about seeking attention from everybody by marching around with your rifle for no reason whatsoever then you are an asshole. The line between not asshole and asshole isn’t even that thin. It’s almost 100 fucking yards thick! 99 percent of the time you can determine whether or not you’re going to cross that line by asking a simple question: will doing this make me an asshole? If you have to ask if something will make you an asshole it almost certainly will.

My point is it doesn’t matter if you’re openly carrying a gun or not; if you’re an asshole people are going to reactive negatively. I’ve seen plenty of gun rights activists who oppose open carry act like completely douche bags when questioned by somebody who is either anti-gun or neutral in the gun debate. Being rude doesn’t help anybody, period. If you want to bitch about a group of gun owners bitch about the ones being jerk-offs. That reminds me, I also have something I want to say to the asshole in the shooting community: fuck off. You’re the reason so many people outside of the shooting community view us as uneducated attention seeking rednecks.

That’s really all the critical things I have to say (for now). On a non-critical note, if you feel as though Starbucks no longer wants your business then feel free to stop going there. Just as Starbucks has every right to deny business to people you have every right to not frequent businesses. Vote with your feet and tell anybody who is curious why you’re voting that way. I’ve never been a frequent Starbucks customer. While I do like Starbucks’ coffee I can’t justify the cost when making my own is so much cheaper. But I won’t boycott Starbucks over its recent requests. My reading of the letter leads me to believe Starbucks isn’t coming out against gun owners but against being used as a political pawn. I understand that position; I don’t like being used as a political pawn either. Starbucks never said I couldn’t bring my gun into its stores. It simply asked nicely that I don’t, unless I want to.

The Folly of Basing Society Agreements of Geographic Regions

In one of my ever fewer forays into /r/Libertarian I found an interesting link by a user who was looking for feedback on a proposted libertarian constitution he wrote. I decided to take a look at it and noticed that it started off with “We the Citizens of the State of New Hampshire…” That brought up a criticism I have of most attempts by libertarians to establish a libertarian society: they have a tendency to based their society on geographic regions.

I believe it’s time to free ourselves of those imaginary lines drawn on pieces of paper. Geographic regions mean far less today than they did a century ago. The advent of efficient and quick transportation technology combined with effective real-time communication technology has allowed humanity to live a more mobile existence than it did in the past. Thanks to modern avionics I can be anywhere in the Continental United States in a matter of hours. Likewise, I can communicate with my associates via e-mail, instant messenger, video conferencing or telephone from wherever I end up. These technologies have allowed me to become members of geographically separate groups. Throughout the year I communicate with my Defcon friends and once a year we all travel to Las Vegas to meet. I would argue that I’m more of a member of the Defcon community than I am of the Minnesota community. The same goes for my membership in the shooting, gun blogging, agorist, and anarchist communities.

Communities, when all said an done, are groups of people who interact with one another. The Internet has allowed these interactions to take place regardless of geographic separation, which has rewritten the rules on social agreements. Libertarian societies, in my opinion, should take shape in the form of mutual aid societies. What other reason would libertarians get together other than for mutual benefit? Libertarian philosophy, especially when you begin moving towards complete anti-statism, isn’t based on geography; it’s based on voluntary interactions. Those interactions can largely take place regardless of physical location. If one of my fellows is in need of assistance I can transfer a quantity of Bitcoin (or pieces of paper with pictures of dead presidents) to him instantly and he can use that to access needed resources local to him.

There are times when geographic agreements make sense. A group of people living around a lake, for instance, would likely benefit from laying down some common mutually agreeable ground rules. But general agreement between fellows one voluntarily interacts with need not be so restricted.

It would do the libertarian community well to toss off the shackles of physical location. We live in a great big world that floats around in a great big universe. Why restrict ourselves to infinitesimal points in a practically limitless area?

Starbucks Requests Gun Owners to Stop Openly Carrying in Stores

It was bound to happen, Starbucks has put out an official request that gun owners no longer openly carry firearms into its stores:

Few topics in America generate a more polarized and emotional debate than guns. In recent months, Starbucks stores and our partners (employees) who work in our stores have been thrust unwillingly into the middle of this debate. That’s why I am writing today with a respectful request that customers no longer bring firearms into our stores or outdoor seating areas.

As usual this decision has ignited very strong emotions on both sides of the gun debate. Many gun owners, at least on my social media feeds, are very upset and some have even begun to call for a boycott of Starbucks. Gun control advocates are cheering this as a success because they believe they have convinced Starbucks to ban firearms from their stores. I think both of these reactions are out of proportion.

Starbucks hasn’t banned firearms from its stores, it has merely requested that gun owners no longer openly carry firearms into its stores. The second to final paragraph makes this clear:

I would like to clarify two points. First, this is a request and not an outright ban. Why? Because we want to give responsible gun owners the chance to respect our request—and also because enforcing a ban would potentially require our partners to confront armed customers, and that is not a role I am comfortable asking Starbucks partners to take on. Second, we know we cannot satisfy everyone. For those who oppose “open carry,” we believe the legislative and policy-making process is the proper arena for this debate, not our stores. For those who champion “open carry,” please respect that Starbucks stores are places where everyone should feel relaxed and comfortable. The presence of a weapon in our stores is unsettling and upsetting for many of our customers.

I’m not upset at this request. After all, openly carrying rifles into Starbucks was bound to turn sour. Political debates are lose-lose scenarios for businesses. No matter what side of a debate a business supports it runs the risk of alienating a portion of its customer base. That’s why most businesses make no statements regarding a political debate unless the issue stands to cause direct harm to its bottom line.

People often allow their personal bias to color their judgement. Some gun rights activists and gun control advocates saw Starbucks’ neutrality as a pro-gun stance. This incorrect judgement lead gun rights activists to hold Starbucks Appreciation Day and gun control advocates to hold Skip Starbucks Day. Both sides turned neutral Starbucks into a political battlefield and, as the company’s request makes clear, that was not a position it wanted to be in:

Recently, however, we’ve seen the “open carry” debate become increasingly uncivil and, in some cases, even threatening. Pro-gun activists have used our stores as a political stage for media events misleadingly called “Starbucks Appreciation Days” that disingenuously portray Starbucks as a champion of “open carry.” To be clear: we do not want these events in our stores. Some anti-gun activists have also played a role in ratcheting up the rhetoric and friction, including soliciting and confronting our customers and partners.

In other words, Starbucks feels as though both sides have been acting like assholes and interfering with its simple desire to just sell some fucking coffee. Now, unfortunately, some gun rights activists and gun control activists are probably going to take Starbucks’ neutrality as an anti-gun stance and continue pushing political agendas in its stores.

I will close by saying this: if a person or organization doesn’t want to involve itself in a political debate then that wish should be respected. Neither side of the gun debate should demand boycotts of Starbucks or host political demonstrations on Starbucks’ property. Starbucks hasn’t prohibited carry in its stores so those wanting to open carry while getting a cup of coffee may still do so. Just be respectful of Starbucks’ neutrality. Don’t make a public spectacle of yourself. Those of you who fall on the anti-gun side should do the same. Be respectful of Starbucks’ neutrality and don’t start yelling at people carrying guns. If you mind your and we mind our business everybody sitting in Starbucks’ who doesn’t give a shit about either of our causes will be happier.

The Legal Issue Regarding Fingerprints

I have mixed feelings about the iPhone 5S’s fingerprint reader. On the one hand I believe it would encourage users to enable the security features on their phones. On the other hand it makes things easier for law enforcement because forcing somebody’s finger onto a reader is much easier than coercing their password out of them. As it turns out there may be additional legal issues regarding Apple’s fingerprint reader:

Courts have given mixed messages about whether Americans are protected from being forced to divulge passwords or decrypt information for law enforcement officials. Civil liberties advocates argue defendants shouldn’t have to unlock their own computers for the cops. The logic: Under the Fifth Amendment, Police can’t force you to self-incriminate by testifying, or divulging something in your mind.

It’s unclear if that same protection applies if the password is your fingerprint.

“A fingerprint is entitled to less constitutional protection than a password known in your mind,” said Hanni Fakhoury, a staff attorney at the Electronic Frontier Foundation in San Francisco. “If police arrest you and ask you for a password, you could refuse and they’d be hard pressed to force you to divulge the password.”

Of course, police already collect fingerprints after booking a suspect. And the Supreme Court has also held that police don’t need a search warrant to collect fingerprints.

The combination of being able to collect fingerprints without a search warrant and the east of which a person’s finger can be forced onto a scanner creates a dangerous legal environment. It’s not stretch of the imagination to think of a situation where a police officer forces a suspects finger onto their phone’s scanner, finds incriminating evidence, and makes an arrest based on that evidence. During the court battle the office would argue that he is allowed to collect fingerprints without a search warrant, which is what he did.

3D Printed Pepperbox Handgun

3D printed guns are all the rage today. Those of us who believe in the free flow of information, advancing technology is beneficial, and gun rights are cheering the continuous advancement of these infinitely replicable pistols. The other side of the table, the Luddites who believe modern technology must be wiped from the face of the planet, are being hysterical. I’m happy to say that my side is winning. What’s interesting is that the advancement of 3D printed handguns is starting to take a similar path as the original advancement of handguns. The currently limitation, besides the ones caused by the nature of the materials being used, has been an inability for 3D printed firearms to fire more than one round at a time. That problem has been solved with the introduction of a 3D printed pepperbox handgun:

Consider, for example, the Hexen pepperbox, which has stainless steel liners for its six barrels and is undergoing constant strengthening and improvement as discussed over in the DefCad forum. The video below shows the Hexen successfully fired (actually, it appears to be a related five-shot model), using 6mm Flobert (low-powered .22) ammunition.

The designer, Franco, even printed ammunition holders for the pepperbox, along with a tool for ejecting expended cases (both pictured above).

At this rate I’m beginning to think we’ll see functional 3D printed semi-automatic pistols later this year or early next year. Reality isn’t kind to those who try to suppress the advancement of technology. Every law put into place to stop people from acquiring guns will be rendered meaningless once 3D printers become more widespread and 3D printable firearms become reliable. Technology has a way of overcoming state barriers. Anybody who thinks they can use the state to stop technology is a deluded fool.

Crowd Sourcing, an Alternative to Copyrights

I seldom talk about video games on this blog because I personally have little time to partake in the hobby anymore. Back in the day I was a gamer and one of the men who had an aptitude for taking my money was Keiji Inafune. If you’re unfamiliar with the name, Mr. Inafune is one of the creator of the video game series MegaMan. MegaMan was, and still is, my favorite game series so it was all but inevitable that Mr. Inafune, after announcing he was planning what looks to be a spiritual successor to the MegaMan series, would take more of my money.

What does this have to do with copyrights? Instead of producing a game and releasing it, Mr. Inafune and his team decided to crowd source funding via Kickstarter (yes, I did throw my money at the project). As long time readers know, I oppose all forms of intellectual property. I cannot justify the use of force needed to maintain monopolies on ideas. Whenever I discuss my opposition to intellectual property I usually meet resistance from individuals concerned about people who make their money via intellectual property laws. Authors, software developers, and game makers would all go broke if copyright laws no longer existed, right? Wrong.

The idea behind copyright laws is that a creative person can create a work, release it to the world, and make money for his or her efforts. Changing that order slightly allows a creative person to make a profit without copyright laws. Crowd sourcing allows a creative person or team to get money up front so they can create a work and release it to the world.

Mr. Inafune and his team are asking for money up front before they begin development. Their goal has been met with a lot of extra money still rolling in. There’s no reason authors or software developers couldn’t do the same thing. Of course this strategy often requires a little priming of the pump. People are unlikely to throw money at a complete unknown so an author, software developer, or game maker would likely have to release some work for free in order to demonstrate their competence. Authors, software developers, and game makers already have to do this so, in the grand scheme of things, nothing would change. Authors often get advances by publishers to write new books but only after writing a book and gaining the interest of the publisher. No publisher is going to give a complete unknown an advance. Software developers have to write their software and release it to the world before they can expect any payment. Game makers, likewise, have to create a game and release it before anybody will give them money for it. Little changes when you move away from copyright laws and rely on up front funding instead.

Intellectual property is dying. The Internet, by offering a venue to share infinitely reproducible copies of intellectual works, has cut intellectual property laws off at the knees. Politicians are scrambling to make more asinine laws to delay the inevitable. People who have relied on intellectual property laws are adapting to new ways of making money. In the end, intellectual property will die an agonizing death but the release of creative works will continue. I believe crowd sourcing is one of the solutions that will allows creative individuals to make money off of their ideas without having to rely on a forcefully protected monopoly.

Has the Ideological Purge Begun for the Free State Project

The idea behind the Free State Project is a noble one. Get enough people to move to New Hampshire so that the entire governmental body can be overtaken by advocates of liberty. I give the project credit for creativity and optimism but the execution of the idea has been lackluster. One of the ironies of the Free State Project, in my opinion, is its reliance on a board to make major decisions. Small groups of people having unilateral decision making power seems to be the exact opposite of what the Free State Project is trying to achieve. Yesterday the outcome of granting a small group of people power was demonstrated. Chris Cantwell, a rather fiery participant who I believes suffers a from an asshole complex, was booted out of the Free State Project by its board:

Dear Chris,

The FSP Board met last night to discuss your situation and what to do. Our decision is stated below, which includes our reasoning.

Whereas Chris Cantwell has made the following public statements, been offered the opportunity to retract, and has refused to do so: “It’s a terribly unpopular thing to say, but the answer, at some point, is to kill government agents,” and “any level of force necessary for anyone to stop any government agent from furthering said coercion [tax collection in the context of funding the salaries of all government employees] is morally justifiable…”

Whereas the FSP Board believes this view exceeds the right of self-defense

Whereas the Policy and Procedure for Removing Participants (passed 7/11/04) states:

Participants may be removed for promoting violence, racial hatred, or bigotry. Participants who are deemed detrimental to the accomplishment of the Free State Project’s goals may also be removed.

Therefore, according to the Policy and Procedure for Removing Participants, the FSP Board removes Chris Cantwell as a participant and declares him unwelcome to attend FSP-organized events.

In peace and liberty,

Jody

for the FSP Board

I understand why the board kicked him out. Anybody who advocates for violence is a potential liability:

Deep down, Free Staters know this, and that’s why they’re Free Staters. They see this injustice, they want it to stop, and so they are coming together to make a stand against it. The only problem is, now that they have come together, they have absolutely no idea what to do, because their vision of a peaceful evolution to a voluntary society is being shattered on an almost daily basis by government violence. That violence is all too sure to escalate, as the government agents of New Hampshire and elsewhere acquire more advanced and sophisticated technology to oppress these peaceful activists, and the population in general.

So what to do? It’s a terribly unpopular thing to say, but the answer, at some point, is to kill government agents. The government agents know that, and that’s why they want a tank.

Honestly, that kind of advocacy screams agent provocateur. But my main point isn’t the fact that Mr. Cantwell was given the boot, it’s the fact that a board exists to give him the boot. I’ve always been worried about the scale of the Free State Project. Bringing together the people necessary to take over the political body of an entire state is no small task. Trying to bring so many people into a single organization seldom works as intended.

I’m not a fan of large groups. Large groups tend to start off strong and end up paralyzed. Most groups start off with the best of intentions but, at some point, the group becomes more concerned about keeping itself alive than perusing its original mission. Small groups suffer from this complex less and allow member mobility. For example, were the Free Start Project a federation of smaller groups individuals not wanting to association with Mr. Cantwell could easily split off from his group to either form their own or to join another. Leaving a small group is cheaper (in terms of personal connections, group resources, etc.) than leaving a large group.

I’ve often thought that the Free State Project should be a idea, not an organization. In my vision people could declare themselves Free Staters just as they can declare themselves libertarians, anarchists, or discordians. That way individuals would have more autonomy.

My primary concern is that the Free State Project is starting to transition into the self-preservation stage of large organization. Giving Mr. Cantwell the boot does seem like the beginning of an ideological purge. Ideological purges always start small and appear to be focused exclusively on radicals within the group. As time goes on the purges become less and less focused. Eventually all but those deemed ideologically pure by the controlling interests of the organization are sent on their way and the organization effectively ceases pursuit of its declared mission. I hope the Free State Project hasn’t reached this point because I like much of the work that comes out of its members but I believe my concern is valid.

The Market Fights Against Discrimination

Whenever a story involving discrimination appears in the news statists are quick to demand more anti-discrimination laws. I believe that anti-discrimination laws are both ineffective and unnecessary. While I do believe one is free to believe whatever they want and associate with whoever they want I also know that markets have a history of treating those who discriminate very poorly. Case in point, some believers in religions that view homosexuality as a sin have chosen to discriminate against homosexuals. A recent clash between one of these individuals and a gay couple demonstrates the inevitable outcome:

A husband-and-wife bakery shop team in Oregon were forced to close their shop doors and move to cheaper digs — their home — after gay-rights activists hounded them and drove away contract business because they refused for Christian reasons to bake for a same-sex wedding.

[…]

The Kleins say they’re now closing up their doors and moving their operations to their home. Their business, they say, has suffered a serious revenue hit from the unexpected activism and backlash.

If you choose to discriminate then people who oppose discrimination are apt to cut off ties with you and encourage others to cut off ties with you. For a business such activism can be fatal. This story demonstrates why I prefer market-based solutions to statist solutions. Although the bakery owners did something many found disagreeable nobody brought force into the equation. The act, which many found disagreeable, lead to the end of the bakery, which should discourage other business owners from perusing the same path (although they are still free to do so if they choose).

EDIT: 2013-09-05: 09:44: Corrected a small typo that was pointed out to me via a Bitmessage (cool, huh).